create_ad_unit

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the tool creates a new ad unit and that the response includes the unit's name and slot ID. However, it does not mention key behavioral details such as adClient auto-detection, uniqueness constraints, or failure behavior when the ad client is invalid. Some useful context is given, but it is not comprehensive.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two concise sentences. The action verb and object are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the return value follows in the second. There is no wasted text or redundant restating of the tool name.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the relatively simple 3-parameter schema with full coverage and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it states what is created and what is returned. It could additionally mention that adClient is optional and auto-detected, but that is already captured in the schema. For a straightforward create operation, this level of detail plus the schema is sufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters: type, adClient, and displayName. The description adds no additional per-parameter meaning, only mentioning the return value. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting and the description does not materially enrich parameter understanding.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new ad unit.' It also clarifies the expected return value, distinguishing this creation tool from the sibling list/get/generate tools. The purpose is immediately recognizable and unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention checking existing ad units via list_ad_units, nor any required preconditions or context. The use case is only implied by the 'create' wording, not articulated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.